Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 04:49 UTC

masoo / ddd_domain

rails domains directory generator

Ruby · HTMLMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

masoo/ddd_domain holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (60/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated 40 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

39
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FUNABARA MasaoPersonal account
5 followers25 public repossince Sep 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
RubyGemsddd_domain1.5.8-4840 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

60Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 40 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18Commit volume20 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year20
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push40
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases48 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 40 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~31.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagv1.5.8
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases31.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50/80Total downloads65,437 downloads all-time across rubygems
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesddd_domain
dependents
ecosystemsrubygems
total_downloads65,437
monthly_downloads
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

36Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0.6/30PR acceptance1/47 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs46
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
5.6/25Owner reach5 followers of masoo
22.3/25Track record25 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmasoo
public_repos25
account_age_days5,108
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on rubygems
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 40 days ago
20/20Version history48 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesddd_domain
ecosystemsrubygems
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish40

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

36Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://rubygems.org/gems/ddd_domain
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://rubygems.org/gems/ddd_domain
docs_sitehttps://rubygems.org/gems/ddd_domain
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 42 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history1 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.02
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapTaskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 50
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 50 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes3,704
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
20commits, last 12 months
40days since last push
48releases
1bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-17 04:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactionpack8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactionview8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2indirect
RubyGemsminitest6.0.6indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrack-session2.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsrailtiesindirect
RubyGemsrailties8.1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 42 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsRubyGems.